Posted on 08/24/2014 11:52:16 AM PDT by marktwain
| The Latin means "He who transplants, sustains" |
"Why is our bar association taking a position on a matter that has nothing to do with the practice of law?" Hartford lawyer and former Democratic state Chairman John Droney asked in an email typical of hundreds of others inspired by a debate that has continued now for two months.The President of the Bar, Mark Dubois, replied:
Dubois contends the bar serves the public by permitting experts in its specialty sections to debate and take positions on sharp legal questions. If the association races toward an unpopular, minority position, he said membership can use its referendum right as a restraint.Anyone who has studied the dynamics of such groups realizes that such a position amounts to a blank check to the leadership of what it can get away with. As the leadership controls a significant amount of the information that the membership receives, this gives it considerable power to influence events outside of the core issues of the group.
"As one member said to me, what's next?" Dubois said. "Immigration. Obamacare? And I said, 'Yes. All of those and probably more that we haven't even thought about.' All of which have legal implications and all of which may involve a request by one or more of our constituent sections."
After listening to entreaties by past association presidents and a lawyer who also is a Newtown selectman, the house of delegates voted 34 to 15 to join with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in defense of the law — in spite of signs that a substantial portion of the membership might be opposed. Among the signs: A straw poll showing opposition was running 4-to-1 in one of the association's biggest sub districts, Hartford.
On Aug. 5, lawyers opposed to joining the Brady defense had collected sufficient petition signatures to force a referendum. Dubois said he cannot recall that happening during his 40 years as a bar member.The irony is thick. This response by the person who said that if the membership does not like what we do, they can "use their referendum right", knowing full well that it was nearly impossible to do so.
The final vote announced Wednesday afternoon was so close that CBA President Mark Dubois wrote members, "I am ruling that the referendum vote will be called as tied. I do not feel that the best interests of the CBA would be served going forward without a clear and empirically defensible result. Accordingly, I have decided not to sign the brief prepared by the Brady Center in support of the Appellee in the matter of Shew v. Malloy."I wonder what the actual vote was. Mr. Dubois must have released it to the membership. Some might wonder if Mr. Dubois would have given this response if the vote were in his favor.
Dubois said Wednesday afternoon that the vote may have been even closer, as issues with a new website format may have hampered some members' efforts to vote late Tuesday night.
The antics of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda are being scrutinized.
IMHO
Memo to CT Bar Assn: Get a clue. Read 2A of the US Constitution.
Do you think they would ever take into consideration such verdicts as these?
Federal court decision - “A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).”
“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
“Dubois said Wednesday afternoon that the vote may have been even closer, as issues with a new website format may have hampered some members’ efforts to vote late Tuesday night.”
Sure. Uh huh...
No time. Too busy filing for licenses and permits for First Amendment and other protections in the Bill Of Rights.
During the ‘80s and ‘90s, state bar associations supported the laws that brought the divorce/cohabitation regime.
If you can afford to pay for your Second Amendment right, you can keep it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
